Feeling Good

General Tikka landed in East Pakistan at 3:40PM on March 7th, 1971. Do you think he alienated the Bengalis in 18 days which resulted in Mujeeb declaring Independence on 26th March. He did not have any role in the political negotiations with Mujeeb at this time. He requested a meeting with Mujeeb which Mujeeb turned down due to his own political reasons. Tikka`s orders at this time were clear; Take no action against anyone and keep the army in the barracks, which he implemented.

He is often portrayed as the man who favored a military solution to the dispute, which is not true since he supported the negotiations that were going on, even though he was not a part of those negotiations. Read Salik`s book, a firsthand account, which makes it clear along with internal army documents that Tikka was not informed of the status of the negotiations. Even Farman and Khadim Raja were not aware of the status, even though they had been therw well before Tikka. The negotiations were being done by General Yahya and his team that had flown in from west Pak.He did not know what was going on; only late on 23rd March was he told by Yahya to launch military operations. Read all sorts of books, there are hundreds of books out there on the 1971 war, quite a few of them by Pakistanis, Indians and Westerners and Bangladeshis. I will list them later.

He was not responsible for Pakistan`s humiliation. He was not financially corrupt like some of the other Generals (Niazi), nor was he a perpetual drinker like some others (which resulted in them neglecting their duties (including Yahya). He was a soldier doing what he was ordered to do by the President. What did you expect him to do on the 23rd of March when told by Yahya to lanch the operation? Tell Yahya that he was flying back to West Pakistan? Then some other General would have undertaken the operation, but you would have still blamed Tikka, just like people blame Sahibzada Yakub and Admiral Ahsan today for being ``soft`` even though they were really good soldiers. (Will reply in detail later.)

#158 by Tmk

[General Gul was the Chief of Army Staff from after the war till March 3, 1972. Only then was General Tikka appointed, since he had no political ambitions, and at that time the prestige of the army was low so Army rule in West Pak was not a possibility.]

You got me wrong. The point is not whether he was immediately promoted or not, nor is it about political ambition. It is that a man accountable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis, and Pakistan`s humiliation, could still retain office, and what`s worse, be promoted.

Re 154 by Harish Hyder:

``The Hamood-ur-Rahman report means diddly-squat since it was never never made public and acted upon. Not a single jawan/officer has been convicted till date for his role in the atrocities. In fact, Gen. Tikka Khan, widely known as the butcher of Bangladesh, was promoted to the rank of General right after the war.``

General Gul was the Chief of Army Staff from after the war till March 3, 1972. Only then was General Tikka appointed, since he had no political ambitions, and at that time the prestige of the army was low so Army rule in West Pak was not a possibility.

editors/interactors -- post #151 is NOT MINE -- given that i have seen this happen with other people is it then fair to assume that it is easy to hack into one`s account here?

harish #154 On abu ghraib: You clearly missed my point when you wrote ``As for Abu Ghraib, public outcry began only after the gory pictures were splashed across newspapers all over America. `` and ``You are making a virtue out of necessity. Had the media not exposed the sordid saga of abuse at Abu Ghraib, you think the US would have ever accepted it`s mistakes? ``

This ``media`` you refer to (specifically, the ``60 Minutes II`` show that broke the case wide open) is part of the checks and balances in the US that I refer to when I give the US an A+. It is not external to to the US.

And once again, I dont have any ``necessities`` that I try to make virtues out of. I am not interested in ``defending`` the actions of any government or any country - I am only interested in trying to understand the truth.

harish_hyd #154 on pakistan army in bangladesh - you are wrong when you assume that the hamood urrehman report was never made public. Please re-read what I wrote, and note that I say it was never made OFFICIALLY public. However, unofficially large sections (and I am quite sure the entire report) has in fact been made public by the pakistan press. I did a google on ``Hamood bangladesh`` and right on top came this on a pakistani website www.lawfirm.org.pk/hmd.html

And as I say, to the best of my knowledge there is no similar report on kashmir in India (or gujerat for that matter).

As I say in my post on abu ghraib that I just sent, I am not interested in defending any government or nation. Only on getting to the truth. And the truth as I understand it (and I am prepared to learn about any similar report in India on Indian army actions in kashmir) is that there is no such report in India. It may well be that the extent of abuse in Kashmir by the Indian army was smaller than that in Bangladesh by the Pakistan army - all I am saying is there is no evidence of internal controls within the military or broader controls within the society in India or Pakistan of the kind that the US has demonstrated.

The ``Moral Gap`` between the subcontinent and the US in this respect is as wide as the mouths of those who constantly harp against the US or against one another in India and Pakistan.

#153 by tahmed32 on May 31, 2004 6:10pm PT

[The Hamoodurehman report did a good job of documenting much of the abuse - and to this day has not been made public by any government]

[There has been no equivalent of the Hamoodurehman report in India (as far as I know). There has been no national outcry]

The Hamood-ur-Rahman report means diddly-squat since it was never never made public and acted upon. Not a single jawan/officer has been convicted till date for his role in the atrocities. In fact, Gen. Tikka Khan, widely known as the butcher of Bangladesh, was promoted to the rank of General right after the war.

In Kashmir, individual killings/rapes have not been wide-spread, so there has never been an outcry nor there is a need for a HuR type of report. The media is pretty free in India and if these incidents were wide-spread, they would have definitely brought to light, if not by the national media, at least by the international media. Remember the Gujarat riots, where the gory details were first brought to light by the Indian media. It is not easy to hide an intentional rape/killing in the valley, especially when there is so much opposition to Indian rule.

As for Abu Ghraib, public outcry began only after the gory pictures were splashed across newspapers all over America.

[the US demonstrated the national character to face up to the truth and to have a national outcry]

You are making a virtue out of necessity. Had the media not exposed the sordid saga of abuse at Abu Ghraib, you think the US would have ever accepted it`s mistakes?

harish #152 I think there is a way to measure the behavior of armies as well. It is in terms of the level of ex ante and ex post controls regarding adherence to geneva conventions. On this basis:

1. US military in al ghraib: ex ante controls = F(ail); ex post controls = D

Reason: evidence indicates that ex ante failed (perhaps 33 killed. others abused, 4000-5000 innocent people held for long periods of time); ex post controls were poor but not total failure: army general reported problems in november but his report ignored; army soldier separately reported problems and photos a month or so later, and announced to the world via press conference in January; Gen. Taguba commissioned to investigate. Nevertheless, it took TV show (``90 minutes II``) to finally bring the entire story out.

2. Pakistan military in Bangladesh: F and F.

Reason: evidence indicates ex ante failed (exact estimate of civilians killed not certain, but deaths documented by international agencies); ex post also failed as army did not do anything as follow-up.

3. Indian military in Kashmir: F and D

Reason: evidence indicates ex ante failed (exact esitmates uncertain, but deaths and abuse documented by international agencies). ex post gets D because some courts martial did take place. But large majority of unknown.

So, in summary, all three militaries LEFT TO THEMSELVES basically failed to behave according to international conventions.

SO, lets move to the next level of controls after ex ante and ex post controls beyond the military. These are checks and balances at the national level.

1. US in abu ghraib. A+. Reason: It was the US media (``60 Minutes II``) that brought the story out to the public. The nation did not hide behind excuses - this has been headline news, pictures have been made public, congressional hearings have been held in public, and all this public pressure has resulted in the problem getting fixed at abu ghraib (prisoners freed, conditions brought up to standard).

2. Pakistan in Bangladesh. D+. The Hamoodurehman report did a good job of documenting much of the abuse - and to this day has not been made public by any government. There has been no national outcry.

3. India in Kashmir. D-. There has been no equivalent of the Hamoodurehman report in India (as far as I know). There has been no national outcry.


So, in conclusion, while the militaries behaved poorly in all three instances, only the US demonstrated the national character to face up to the truth and to have a national outcry.

harimou:
``So, what is it likely to be: $200 billion, $280 billion or $400 billion?

I want to see all you frikking idiots who mindlessly spout the drivel that Rajiv Gandhi/Manmohan Singh were the economic liberators of India come out with your preditions.``

You talk as if forex reserves are the only criterion of a country`s well-being. They may be an indicator of economic health but only in conjunction with other indicators. If the reserves go up to $400 billion, it would not automatically imply good economic management or vice-versa. In case you didn`t know, the RBI has been for some time concerned about the large increased in forex reserves.

Forex reserves are primarily a function of the attractiveness of a country`s currency; it could mean that the currency is undervalued for the terms of trade, or expected to be revalued, or has a higher interest rates than available elsewhere or preferential treatment given to forex inflows, such as no tax on NRI deposits. As a matter of fact, I would hope that forex reserves do not rise any further; that the Indian corporations use these reserves to acquire attractive companies abroad to seek a global presence or to import the latest machinery and technology to increase their productivity and international competitiveness.
This is what I would look for rather than a mindless climbing of the forex reserves.

#150 by tahmed32 on May 28, 2004 11:27am PT

[I was referring to were actions carried out by individual soldier or officers where the intent was in fact to rape or kill civilians. That is where the US is miles ahead compared to both India and Pakistan.]

In Kashmir, intentional killing of civilians or rape have been few and far in between. I think no Army can discipline individual soldiers/officers bent upon committing acts such as murder or rape. As the conduct of the American prison guards at Abu Ghraib cannot be cited as an example to judge the entire American Army, so can the individual killings/rapes not be cited as an example to judge the Indian Army. When compared to Pakistan`s well-documented actions in Bangladesh, where soldiers responsible for one of the biggest genocides in recent history said by raping Bangladeshi women, they were helping purify Bangladesh`s Muslim race, the Indian Army has certainly fared far better in Kashmir.

And is sexual humilation, as happened at Abu Ghraib any less than rape/killing? If anything, Islamic beliefs say that it is worse.

harish #148 I agree with you on the point concerning where the Indian army unintentionally killed civilians. And no doubt better technology will reduce such civilian deaths in future. What I was referring to were actions carried out by individual soldier or officers where the intent was in fact to rape or kill civilians. That is where the US is miles ahead compared to both India and Pakistan.

Concerning the other points, I did not address them simply because my post was becoming too long, not because I was avoiding the issue. Here are my comments to the question of the US treatment of Indians, slavery, and discrimination against blacks:

First, I agree that these are indeed dark chapters in US history. However, to be fair one should note that such dark chapters exist in virtually every nations history. Starting 50,000 years ago when the neanderthals were wiped out by homo sapiens; who knows what evil went one between that time and 5,000-10,000 years ago when we know the egyptians screwed israelites (by enslaving them); and the israealits escaped, only to screw the canaanites (by destroying their cities and putting men, women and children to the sword); the romans then screwed the israelites, and also screwed the brits, french, germans; the vandals and huns then screwed the romans (razed Rome, e.g.); the aryans screwed the dravidians and in turn got screwed by central asians who were later to get screwed by the brits; the mongols screwed central asians, west asians, and much of europe (and also presented them with the black death which wiped out a third of the british and french populations); the aussies screwed the aborigines (tasmania island they wiped out every single aborigine by organizing aborigine hunts, as a tasmanian farmer once told me); the arabs screwed africans and east europeans and even south brits and icelanders (by enslaving them, and by castrating many of the male slaves) for several centuries).

So, the above is the World History of the Human Race in a nutshell. :-) And so, as Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Second: the US has been an inspiration to the rest of the world because of its democratic ideals - which were formulated when the Divine Right of Kings reigned supreme. AND the US has marched steadily forward towards meeting these ideals - by the emancipation proclamation in 1864, women`s suffrage after that, and the Civil RIghts Act of 1964.

I rest my case.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FE29Df04.html
Pakistan on the march again


``...Officials close to Pakistan`s strategic circle have told Asia Times Online that recently Musharraf was given a detailed briefing of a new strategic road map for Indian-administered Kashmir in which Kashmiri freedom fighters will launch fresh assaults on key targets in the state....``

``...The genesis of Pakistan`s latest policy lies in a meeting held about eight months ago which included several prominent retired army officers, including former chief of army staff, retired General Jehangir Karamat, and a former director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and present managing director of Fauji Fertilizer (the country`s largest fertilizer plant owned by the army`s Fauji Foundation), retired Lieutenant-General Mehmood Ahmed. Also present was retired General (now senator) Javed Asharaf Qazi....``

``...Unlike Russia and the US, Pakistan`s oligarchy has its own dynamics and does not include petrochemical giants and heads of huge multi-national corporations, but ex-officers like retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, retired Lieutenant-General Mehmood Ahmed and retired Lieutenant-General Asad Durrani. These people effectively run Pakistan`s de facto ruling class, the Pakistan Army.

Though these generals have been retired for several years, they have retained their grip on many mafias, including religious ones, Afghan warlords and Pakistani and Afghan politicians. Their unmatched wealth and influence keep these generals in the power game.

Apart from many powerful import and export businesses, Gul operates a transport service (a bus service monopoly) in the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad. The business is actually in the name of his daughter, Uzma Gul.

After being railways and communications minister and director general of the ISI, General Javed Asharaf Qazi (the founding father of the Taliban) is today a senator of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League. Another former director of the ISI, Asad Durrani, launched several joint Pakistan-US intelligence operations, and since his retirement he has served as an ambassador in important European countries, as well as in Saudi Arabia. Men such as these, as they have in the past, are defining Pakistan`s policies. ...``


Chalo, when ordinary Pakistani obfuscate all discussion of these policies by calling Indians `hatemongerers`, we know who these ordinary Pakistanis are really defending.

#146 by tahmed32 on May 26, 2004 12:03pm PT

[I think the keyword is ``intent``.]

Exactly. More Kashmiris fall victim to cross-fire and the bullets of terrorists than to intentional killing by the Indian Army.

[Vietnam was a guerilla war...]

So is Kashmir.

Kashmir is an extremely difficult terrain, both in terms of geography and battlefield conditions. The guerillas the Indian Army fights are motivated, well-trained, and well-armed. In a situation where a soldier has no idea of who the enemy is and where he could fire upon him from, he must make a decision within the blink of an eye.

And when fighting a trigger-happy enemy who believes that the more the casualties (whether military or civilian) the better the news (consequently the rewards), a soldier cannot be expected to take the onus of civilians` safety upon his shoulders because if he does, it can mean certain death for him. That is perhaps one reason for the large number of civilian casualties. But with better technologies such as the hand-held thermal imager that India recently procured from Israel and is also on the way to indigenously developing them, soldiers can now spot a terrorist and incercept him way before he can make his way into population centers. This has drastically reduced civilian casualties in the last 1-2 years. Hopefully it will get even better if and when Pakistan realizes that the Jihadis are a far greater threat to it`s own survival than they can ever be to India`s. The current calm that we are witnessing is only a tactical retreat.

[All I am saying is that COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS INCLUDING INDIA AND PAKISTAN, the US is miles ahead in terms of checks and balances. And I provided examples from 1947 and later in the subcontinent to support my point.]

Sure, but you conveniently chose to remain silent on the issues I raised:
1. Large-scale extermination of Red Indians that brought them to the brink of extinction.
2. Slavery.
3. Discrimination against blacks that continued well until the 60s.

tahmed32 #145
``What I was pointing to (your reading my posts carefully, commenting only when you spot some error) was a fact.``

It is not a fact, Mr Pompous.

harish #140 On the nuclear issue, I hope you will agree that we are now starting to beat a dead horse, and so perhaps we should let this poor animal RIP. Let us just hope that the current peace process will lead to an end in hostilities, and good sense will prevail on both side from here on. As the recent elections in India have demonstrated, these are all ``babu issues`` and the reality is that vast majority of people on both sides are more interested in ``roti, kapra or makaan``.

On the other issue (US in Iraq), you write:

``Do you think the pilots who just the other day bombed a wedding party that killed over 50 people would be ever held accountable? Similar incidents have occurred in Afghanistan too, where children and women have been maimed or killed by daisy-cutters dropped by American fighter jets. Similarly in Vietnam, where the effects of the Napalm bombs that were dropped on hapless civilians are still being felt generations later. Has the US ever apologized for these incidents? Or were the perpetrators ever held accountable?
Just the other day I read that American soldiers would be immune to prosecution for any killings in Iraq. Now how does the much-vaunted American checks and balances system explain that? ``

I think the keyword is ``intent``. Obviously, the bombing of the wedding party was not deliberate and can be attributed to the ``fog of war``. This happens in every war: a famous case was the shooting of General Stonewall Jackson by his own southern troops who mistook him for the enemy. In the current war, the US bombed Canadian troops as well as its own troops in Afghanistan due to human error, and it also shot down a British plane in Iraq. Other armies have done this too - the father of a friend of mine was shot dead with a machine gun burst in the 1965 war by our own troops. And I have read about this being a major problem in other wars (e.g. in an account of the North Africa campaign provided by a participant who wrote that he had no doubt that a number of ``British 8th army vs. the British 8th army`` skirmishes took place). The same is true in Afghanistan. The daisy cutters were targetted at taliban formations, not civilians and to the best of my knowledge these particular bombs in fact were not the ones that accidentally landed on civilians.

So, while tragic, the bombing of the wedding party is comparable to a traffic accident and not to the deliberate targetting of civilians. Nor do I think there is any reasonable person in the world who can seriously think that this was the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Vietnam was a guerilla war where the Viet Cong were part of the population, and here again the targetting was not deliberate. One can question the wisdom or event the morality behind the war, or the fake Gulf of Tonkin incident that was used to escalate US presence in Vietnam from ``advisory`` to full scale. But it would be confusing the issue to think that the napalm attacks were deliberately targetted at civilians.

I am not saying the US is perfect, and do not wish to end up defending every single action done in the name of this country. All I am saying is that COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS INCLUDING INDIA AND PAKISTAN, the US is miles ahead in terms of checks and balances. And I provided examples from 1947 and later in the subcontinent to support my point.

THis post has now become Romairesque as well. So I better end now. Hopefully I have made my point clear though.

nikki #143 you write ``pakistan calling itself a nuclear power is like pakistan saying that it is an industrialised nation...phooey...``

Your logic (i.e. calling Pakistan a nuclear power is like calling it an industrialized nation) leaves a lot to be desired. Please dont waste your time and mine and go practice your new found US slang with someone else.

sadna #142 What I was pointing to (your reading my posts carefully, commenting only when you spot some error) was a fact. Rest assured that I am not so easily flattered.

Knowing your capacity for continuing to argue long after you have run out of anything rational to say, I now wish you a good day and will not be responding to any more posts from you unless and until I change my mind. Bye Bye.

tahmed32 #141
``Glad to see you are carefully reading what I wrote, commenting only when there is an error to be pointed out. ``

You flatter yourself. I have not been following your argument, because there has been no point in doing so in past, and there is no point in doing so now.

btw, if you are so upset about a campaign to declare Pakistan a pariah state in the 90s, do look up the record of one Ms Christina Rocca. In the 90s, she initiated a plan to buy back the Stinger missiles left over from the Afghan war.

When the ISI and Pakistani Army refused to give her an account of where all the surplus Stinger missiles went, as a threat to get some sort of compliance from them, she recommended to President Clinton in 1993 to put Pakistan on a watch list of state sponsors of terrorism.

btw, whatever course of action India decides to follow against Pakistan as a response to Pakistan`s jihad against India, that is India`s sovereign right, for which Indians owe you no explanation.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#138 by tahmed32 on May 24, 2004 2:37pm PT

Tauheed - Sorry - a Romairesque post :-D

{The world was already well aware of the nuclear project - why else do you think were all those economic sanctions imposed? There was nothing for India to ``expose`` that the world did not already know.}

The world sure knew Pakistan was upto something, but had no hard evidence, so the blasts served to provide exactly that.


{Just as the world was never fooled by similar stupid declarations by the Indian government concerning the ``peaceful`` test the first time it conducted a test}

I agree. I don`t understand why India was trying to fool the world by projecting the blasts as being ``peaceful``? Nukes are the last thing that one can associate with peace.


{So, your choice of words (``exposed``) remains incorrect.}

What else would you call Pakistan`s complete denial that it was trying to develop nukes for nearly 2 decades and then one fine day exploding them?


{has there ever been any fuss about the quarter million muslims who were butchered in 1947 in India, or of the quarter million hindus and sikhs who were butchered in 1947 in Pakistan? Any apologies ever delivered, any investigations carried out, any culprits apprehended and punished in either country for 1947? Has there ever been any inquiry? Has the Indian public ever even recognized the rapes and murders its army committed in Kashmir? Has there ever been a hue and cry in Pakistan about the rapes and murders its army committed in Bangladesh? Can you imagine something like Gujrat murders happening in the US without anything happening?}

Do you think the pilots who just the other day bombed a wedding party that killed over 50 people would be ever held accountable? Similar incidents have occurred in Afghanistan too, where children and women have been maimed or killed by daisy-cutters dropped by American fighter jets. Similarly in Vietnam, where the effects of the Napalm bombs that were dropped on hapless civilians are still being felt generations later. Has the US ever apologized for these incidents? Or were the perpetrators ever held accountable?

Just the other day I read that American soldiers would be immune to prosecution for any killings in Iraq. Now how does the much-vaunted American checks and balances system explain that?


{Has the Indian public ever even recognized the rapes and murders its army committed in Kashmir?}

There is no comparison with what the prison guards did to inmates at Abu Ghraib and civilians mostly killed in the cross-fire between terrorists and Indian soldiers in Kashmir. A more apt comparison would be between the latter and incidents like the bombing of a wedding party that I referred to above.

Even so, the Indian Army is against all odds fighting a bloody insurgency in Kashmir that has active public and Pakistani support. A terrorist does not sport a label on his face that identifies him as such. And since a soldier has only a split of a second to choose between life and death, he is prone to errors. In Iraq, it was a situation where the prison guards did not face any threat from the unarmed and defenseless inmates. What made the crime worse was that most (70-90%) of the inmates were innocent as borne out by a report in the NYT.

For the number of Indian troops in Kashmir (0.7 million according to most Pakistani `experts`), the number of abuses has surprisingly been very small. It does not mean that where they happen, they are to be condoned. And because there are appropriate checks and balances to deal with such scenarios, where these abuses have come to light, they have been dealt with accordingly. And the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), that has been at the forefront of bringing such abuses to light, is very much a body that is made up of the Indian public.

Coming to Gujarat, an inquiry is still on. If you have followed the news lately, you might have noticed that the Supreme Court ordered the Best Bakery trial to be held outside Gujarat as the main witness Zaheeda Sheikh complained that she and others were being threatened by local BJP goons. Re-trials have been ordered into many cases where it was felt that justice was not done. And if the riots occurred under the BJP, all this also happened when the BJP, the party that you accuse of being undemocratic, was in power.


{Compare this to India and Pakistan - has there ever been any fuss about the quarter million muslims who were butchered in 1947 in India, or of the quarter million hindus and sikhs who were butchered in 1947 in Pakistan? Any apologies ever delivered, any investigations carried out, any culprits apprehended and punished in either country for 1947?}

For that matter, neither did the US apologize for the abominable tradition of slavery and exterminating millions of Red Indians bringing them to the point of extinction. Nor did it apologize for the discrimination against Blacks who until the 60s were second-class citizens.


{The simple fact is that the US public has a level of morality that is miles ahead of the elite of both India and Pakistan. And US democracy is more mature and has more checks and balances than anything present in India. You wont like my saying this, but this is the truth.}

Morality? To give you just an example, thousands were killed in the Bhopal gas disaster in 1984 when poisonous gas leaked from the Union Carbide plant, yet the US refused to extradite Warren Anderson, the chief of Union Carbide against whom the Supreme Court of India issued an arrest warrant. Generations later it`s effects are still being felt by Bhopal residents, both man and animal. A US court last year rejected a petition filed by the affected asking for more compensation. And from the US public, that paragon of morality, there has hardly been a murmur.

sadna #139 Thanks for the correction and you are right. Glad to see you are carefully reading what I wrote, commenting only when there is an error to be pointed out. So we Pakistanis have INC to thank for the unsuccessful efforts made in the 1990`s to get Pakistan declared a pariah state in the 1990`s. No problem - INC`s secular views are still better than BJP`s religious/nationalist ideology.

Also my basic point on BJP`s explosions remains valid: they started off with trying to bully Pakistan and discovered the path of peace after they found that Pakistan could not be bullied and in fact could now respond in kind. And I realize that most Indian posters like to interpret the events of 1998 in some other way as they have indicated to me in previous interactions (e.g. that the nukes were not meant for Pakistan but to scare China - something that doesnt make sense in light of Advanis threats to Pakistan after the explosions; that they were meant for Pakistan but only to ``expose`` Pakistan - but that doesnt make sense for reasons I have explained below; that they were meant to have Pakistan join India in becoming a nuclear power - that doesnt make sense again given the state of Indo-Pak relations at the time). So by any reasonable look at the events of 1998, this basic point remains valid, despite the factual error you pointed out.

Missed this gem earlier:
tahmed32 #93
``Throughout the 1990`s, prior to the nuclear explosions, BJP had followed an aggressive policy of confrontation with Pakistan. After the explosions: BJP suddenly discovered the virtues of peace with Pakistan. ``


`Throughout the 90s` the BJP were in the opposition.

The BJP came to power only in March 1998.

harish #135 I am sorry but you are continuing to argue without any basis. For the record, let me correct you:

1. you write ``Dude, I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong. This has nothing to do with right or wrong. It only means that the world came to know for sure of something that it had always suspected and Pakistan had furiously denied. ``

The world was already well aware of the nuclear project - why else do you think were all those economic sanctions imposed? There was nothing for India to ``expose`` that the world did not already know.

Just as the world was never fooled by similar stupid declarations by the Indian government concerning the ``peaceful`` test the first time it conducted a test. Both the Indian and Pakistani governments is made up of babus who think they can fool the rest of the world by lying. If they had any sense, they would simply have refused to comment on the nuclear programs instead of telling obvious lies.

And the other points I made (that in any case Pakistan was perfectly within its legal rights as non-signatory to the npt) are also quite valid. So, your choice of words (``exposed``) remains incorrect.

2. you write ``Funny how you ignore the grave human rights violations in Iraq (Abu Ghraib is just the beginning) and elsewhere (Afghanistan for example) committed by the armed forces of your adopted country and instead eulogize America’s noble intentions in invading Iraq``

I dont ignore anything - rather, I am confident that the US as a country has enough formal and informal checks and balances to ensure that those responsible are identified and punished appropriately. That is not the case with India or Pakistan.

Examples: In case of abu ghraib, it was a US soldier who first raised a red flag; the US immediately sent a general to investigate, and that report has been damaging; it was a US TV program that publicized it and the resulting hue and cry was enough for the President on down to apologize to the Iraqi people. The US has moved quickly, and one man (Sivits) has already been tried and punished. Other trials are in the pipeline. Nothing is being kept secret.

Compare this to India and Pakistan - has there ever been any fuss about the quarter million muslims who were butchered in 1947 in India, or of the quarter million hindus and sikhs who were butchered in 1947 in Pakistan? Any apologies ever delivered, any investigations carried out, any culprits apprehended and punished in either country for 1947? Has there ever been any inquiry? Has the Indian public ever even recognized the rapes and murders its army committed in Kashmir? Has there ever been a hue and cry in Pakistan about the rapes and murders its army committed in Bangladesh? Can you imagine something like Gujrat murders happening in the US without anything happening? Even ABV was silent as Modi effectively frightened away any witnesses on Gujrat. On chowk, you see educated people from both countries parrotting what their government has told them without bothering to see what the facts are or to think for themselves.

The simple fact is that the US public has a level of morality that is miles ahead of the elite of both India and Pakistan. And US democracy is more mature and has more checks and balances than anything present in India. You wont like my saying this, but this is the truth.

3. ``Not attending the swearing-in is merely a symbolic protest against the assumption of office by a foreign-born citizen, to which the BJP is perfectly entitled to. Is that so hard to understand? ``

What BJP did was pure discrimination on the basis of nationality that has no basis on the Constitution. And yes, any party that is bound by religious ideology - whether hindu or muslim - has nothing to offer to society other than internal divisions and injustices.

rsridhar #133 I dont think the India-Pakistan peace process was ever driven by personalities as it is by stark realities. And even to the extent personal rapport between leaders is useful, I dont think Musharaff and ABV ever developed anything much beyond what protocol would call for - and certainly nothing of the warmth that Nawaz Sharif and Gujral had developed, or even Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto.

Nevertheless what you say is an intriguing possibility: with ABV continuing to be responsible for leading peace talks with Pakistan, it could help remove roadblocks BJP would put otherwise to the peace process. Also, ABV ahad called for ``trust building measures`` which included the recent cricket tour that was a spectacular success I think, and which include economic links where businessmen are already ahead of the two governments (often through circuitous routs like striking business deals using businessmen in Dubai).

Thus, ABV could play a natural role as ``elder statesman`` in these ``soft`` areas of trust building - areas which I think will prove more substantial than all the ``hard`` talk about Kashmir (where I dont think there is much either government can do other than maintain the status quo).

The recent blowing up of the bus carrying indian soldiers and their families reminds us how serious the situation still remains, though. This murderous act was clearly timed to try and create bad blood between India and Pakistan and to make it harder for the two governments to continue the peace process. One can only pray that God gives boths sides the wisdom and the strength to overcome those who seek to continue this violence. The phone conversation between musharaff and Manmohan singh gives one hope that they may be building up personal understandings that will allow this to happen.

rsridhar
//....China can`t be India`s role model. ...//

No kidding !!

The average chinese , city-dwller or villager , lives better, eats better, educated better, get better health care. Chinese economy is acutally over-heating - there is just too much growth.

You should read Wall street journal once in a while. Before that - raise your blinds and look around. Only morons in India think China`s growth is NOT for real.

#81 by tahmed32 on May 20, 2004 9:05am PT

[Your choice of words (``exposed``) indicates that Pakistan was guilty of doing something illegal or immoral…..]

Dude, I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong. This has nothing to do with right or wrong. It only means that the world came to know for sure of something that it had always suspected and Pakistan had furiously denied.


[Furthermore, there was nothing illegal in what Pakistan was doing - as a soveriegn nation and a non-signatory to the test ban treaty, Pakistan was fully within its legal rights to conduct the 1998 tests. And if it was immoral for Pakistan to conduct nuclear tests, it was no less immoral than for India to conduct the tests.]

Refer to the first 2 sentences of my reply above.


[I hope you will one day be able to apply the same moral standards to the actions of the Indian military in Kashmir that are documented by international agencies..]

Funny how you ignore the grave human rights violations in Iraq (Abu Ghraib is just the beginning) and elsewhere (Afghanistan for example) committed by the armed forces of your adopted country and instead eulogize America’s noble intentions in invading Iraq, yet want to apply moral standards to the Indian Army’s conduct in Kashmir. Isn’t it contradictory? Any dumbhead will accept that the Indian Army has a far better track record in Kashmir than the US can ever hope for in Iraq.


[..the BJP president and senior party members displayed a contempt for the will of the Indian people, a contempt for the Indian constitution through which that will was expressed, and a blatantly racist mindset]

Your vitriol against the BJP is uncalled for. Refusal to accept defeat and resorting to dirty tricks in a bid to retain power would certainly qualify as what you call ‘contempt for the will of the Indian people’. Not attending the swearing-in is merely a symbolic protest against the assumption of office by a foreign-born citizen, to which the BJP is perfectly entitled to. Is that so hard to understand?


[But I dont let my wishes blind me to reality, as I think you are doing.]

On the contrary, I think your hatred for the BJP has blinded you to what is obvious to everyone else.

Ref mohar11 #128

[125 rsridhar
//....It is true that BJP speeded up reforms that were initiated by Manmohan singh himself...//

If BJP speeded up and excelled at something that was started by Singh himself - then what exactly are you complaining about? None of the stuff was BJP`s original idea - and yet they recognized a good thing when the saw one - and carried it forward with gusto. That`s should be a positive thing - no?]

Manmohan Singh had NO choice back in the 1990s when he decided to liberalize the economy. Rajiv G@ndu had no choice either. If you wanted $5 billion in emergency loan from the World Bank/IMF and your economy didn`t have enough foreign exchange for 2 weeks` worth of imports, you have to dance to the tune of the piper who was paying the bills. So it is not as if Manmohan Singh did anything out of conviction rather than compulsion.

But then, we have the revisionists of history who claim that everything good in India came out of the wonderful economic theories of Bandit Nehru, his family and their coterie.

And we have the RSridhars who swallow whole the crap peddled by Indian newspapers (every single one of them left-wing or Commie) and regurgitate that crap here on Chowk.

re:#128 by mohar11
China`s development is very skewed in favor of urban areas. The planners have planned for megacities that will slowly result in urbanisation of rural areas. You may get impressed with these megacities but they carefully hide personal tragedies. Most low wage workers in the manufacturing sector get a roof to live under and food to eat but that`s about it. NO real income!
China can`t be India`s role model. There are umpteen number of studies that question China`s GDP growth. Its growth is heavily depended on foreign investment withot any local entrepreunership.
I am talking about rural poverty which abounds in China (it is as poor as India in the rural areas and hinterlands). When i say BJP was pro-rich what i meant was it completely neglected the Agricultural sector which affects the rural poor more than anything else. It seems to believe that India can get prosperous by getting the top MNCs, outsourcing work from India and building all those big complexes in Bangalore, Pune etc. This is nonsense as this earns not even 5% of GDP whereas the agricultural and the non-organized sector accounts for the bulk of India`s GDP.
Do u now get the picture? BJP did not do anything wrong but it lacked focus.
sridhar

re:#128 by mohar11
To repeat what i said in my previous post: India can`t become prosperous without bringing in the necessary reforms in the Agricultural sector.
Take Chandrababu Naidu for instance. He did nothing wrong basically. He set his eyes on making Hyderabad a techno city and largely succeeded. Then why did he lose this election?

While he was busy hobnobbing with Bill Gates and other IT gurus, farmers in AP were committing suicide due to poor harvest. Is having a Crop Insurance in place such a bad idea then? Why did Naidu not think about this? Why was he unable to change the lives of farmers through the new technology that he introduced in Hyderabad? I know. Time was short but he also lacked focus. Any technology that ultimately does not change the lives of poor in India is redundant.
Sridhar

re: #129 by tahmed32
I think BJP will find it hard to oppose Congress on Kashmir issue after making so much investmet in this in the last year or so. As someone suggested in the Chowk, if Manmohan Singh had some imagination, he can make ABV in charge of Kashmir affairs. This is not unusual and has been done in the past. ABV has personal interest in bringing this affair to a satisfactory conclusion. Mushy trusts ABV. Any new player at this stage would hamper progress.
Sridhar

People are failing to realise the true nature of the election verdict. Many Pseudo-secularists have called it as a mandate for secular, non-communal India. So why did the ``secular`` parties lose in Karnataka, Orissa, Rajastan, M.P. Chattisgarh, Uttaranchal, Punjab. And captured only half the seats in Gujarat, Maharashtra. Infact in some states like U.P., Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal these secualr parites were fighting each other !! And now they are in the same coalition. But if you look at it deeply, it is nothing but basic politics of alliances and caste/creed/religion factors.
The other day I read an article about how Prithviraj Chauhan (Congress leader for Congress in the state of Gujarat) had painstakingly worked out the caste factors of each candidate for each constituency. It worked for his party!! People throughout Bihar and U.P. vote along caste lines. Whereas you will need the Jat based support in Haryana.
I do agree with rsirdhar that BJP looked as a party of the rich, espically after propagating ``India Shinning`` where in reality it wasn`t. It has been accused of doing to little for the masses, India`s poor. But my understanding is, it was not as if the country was doing good during the pre-NDA rule. And only during this rule the indian masses have become poor. This problem of water shortage, high prices/unavailability of food, power interruption or unavailibility of it etc will take more than 5 years of dedicated work. Even when the Central godowns were full with grains, people could not afford two square meals a day. The central gov. wanted the states to pick the foodgrains. But the states didn`t even have enough revenues for transportation. These problems ask for a major overhaul of the development policies. Major infrastructure development is needed. But from where this kind of money the gov. is going to bring. And ofcourse corruption and inefficiency will make it impossible for the development to trickle down to the masses. These new folks are saying that they will give free power. But is there enough of power to begin with. A few years back, India was asking Pakistan to sell the excess of electricity they were producing. It was quite amazing that corruption is not a election issue. Hence we have so many corruption tainted politicians and their respective parties making it to the parliament. It is sad that these law breakers are going to be the law makers.
I think BJP/NDA has been shocked of the defeat because they never expected it. Nor did the Opposition expect to come to power. There had been no major issues/scandals that recently rocked the government and hence the overconfidence and ``India Shinning`` slogans. It became a victim of its own propoganda,also where are the issues that it was harping way back in the 90`s about article 370, Uniform code. Incontrast to what people are saying that it was a defeat of communal forces, I think it was a defeat of secualr BJP. Maybe after BJP put those issues in the backburner, its hardcore supporter didn`t see much difference between it and the Congress. Its ridiculus that when these people fought on the plank of ``Mandir wahi banega`` they swept the polls in North India, and when they are talking about development and peace they don`t have many takers.
The Congress has raised a lot of expectations. Won`t be able to fulfill and will lose the next time. This flip-flop will continue to take place. The educated/entreprising/corrupt people will keep getting rich, whereas the poor will always remain poor thinking one day a politician will come and gift them money and land.
With regard to Uma Bharati resigning from her post. Some one should remind her that it was her promise of BSP that brought BJP to power in M.P. And it would be good for her and her party that she works on that rather than waste tax-payers money on some kind of drama.
With regard to tahmed32`s going gaga about Gujrals peace initiative, it never took off. When the much publisiced ABV`s visit to Lahore to meet Sharif was underminded by Kargil what can you say about Gujrals effort. He didn`t even have any support base in India. And his government didn`t even last long. So I will definitely give ABV the credit for pursuing peace with Pakistan not once, but three times. (But citing this to get votes from Indian Muslims was in bad taste)
Jai Hind

rsridhar #125 I think it must be a bitter pill for BJP to swallow - this end of the free credits it was getting for economic reforms whose architect is generally recognized as being none other than Manmohan Singh. It does seem that BJP will become more right wing now that they are out of power, and perhaps more marginalized as well as more and more people take a dispassionate look at the BJP`s actual role in the generating economic growth, in defense vis a vis Pakistan (where I think their policies were self-defeating, although you and I differ on this point it seems), and perhaps most importantly in the role they played in creating divisions within Indian society (not just the rich-poor divisions that cost them the election, but also hindu-muslim divisions as well). And I think over time their reaction to Sonia Gandhi`s nomination through due electoral process will speak volumes about the kind of loser mindset.

On India-Pakistan relations, it is critical to see how Musharaff and co react to the change in government and how much support BJP continues to provide to the process now that it is out of power and will no longer be able to pick up credit on this point as well as it tried to do in the last elections. Let us hope all concerned behave responsibly, realizing that their first duty is towards the millions of poor in Pakistan and in India and are all too often invisible to the elite in both countries.

125 rsridhar
//....It is true that BJP speeded up reforms that were initiated by Manmohan singh himself...//

If BJP speeded up and excelled at something that was started by Singh himself - then what exactly are you complaining about? None of the stuff was BJP`s original idea - and yet they recognized a good thing when the saw one - and carried it forward with gusto. That`s should be a positive thing - no?

When BJP took over in 1999 - there was fear all around that the economic reforms are going to be stalled because of the swadeshi rhetoric from RSS. Everybody was scathing in their criticism - fearing return of ``hindu rate of growth``. Nobody believed BJP could turn out to be pro-reform party and better economic managers. The first few years of BJP rule actually had low GDP growths. Only last couple of years showed the promised growth with only last quarter hitting 8% for first time.

And suddenly - BJP became a pro-rich party which lost sight of poor people. For BJP it was like damned if you do - damned if you don`t. Their successful economic management, instead of being a credit to them, became a liability. All because 2% extra votes went to sonia Gandhi.

And let`s examine the pro-rich and pro-city rhetoric that is being chanted ad nauseam - Which city in India has become world class in the mean time? Last checked they are all the same garbage-dumps they have always been. So where is the pro-city policy that the villagers hated so much? And where are those rich people you are so wild about? A bunch of 20+ code writers who could buy better cologne are called ``rich`` in India?

Get a grip on yourself folks - take a cold shower and then check out beijing, shanghai etc. Now there is your pro-city and pro-rich policy in action - if there is ever one. These cities are world-class - built steadily and deliberately with serious planning and economic management over decades. And now - poor and rich - all chinese are reaping the benefit of such long-term and far-sighted policies and management.

As usual - the chinese have shown the way. But morons in India refuse to see it - logic and reason has escaped from the land of the blind and the fool. One quarter of 8% growth and the breast-beaters are out of the woodwork .... tilting at the windmills and railing against the non-existent ``rich`` and their cities where milk and honey flows in the street.

Just ask yourself one question: Could Beijing be where it is now - if the busy-bodies like yourself have whined as soon as the first sky-scraper came up in Bejing sky line? Of course not. Like Deng said - All chinese are going to be rich - just that some will be rich earlier than others.

Like I have said - with attitude like what we are seeing today ..... 20 years down the line when the chinese nation would be breaking into a first world - jer$ks in india would still be squatting on their hunches ... stilll poor ... still living in garbage-dumps they call cities .... screaming at hard workers who actually bring in the moolah and doing any work at all. The chinese would be laughing all the way to their banks riding on their magnetic levitaion metro....

Only folks who would be rich in India would be the Laloos, secular and pro-poor. Of course - he would be riding that contraption called ambassador car on pot-holed roads and hiding his money in his cowshed.

Good luck.

Ref mohar11 #124

[SO is the case with secularism. Barring 6 years of BJP rule - it was INC that was ruling India .... and secularism was professed and practiced (flawed as it might be) since the begginning. But this had no effect on pakistan whatsover. And now INC is back in power - how would this encourage secularism in pakistan??]

Just like India, in Pakistan too Muslims would be given a free ride over followers of other religions. Hee, hee, hee.

mohar #124 There is always a flip side to everything. Just as manmohan singh`s family would have been killed if they had stayed in west panjab, so would mine have been killed if they had stayed in east panjab. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be prisoners of the past - if we were, no one in the entire world would be talking to one another.

When I refer to the positive influence of India, I refer to some specific things:

1. Secularism: The success of the secular INC over the hindutva BJP is bound to give a strong morale boost to the secular parties in Pakistan. While it is true that secularism has been the expressed creed in India for most of its 50 years, the fact is that religious parties have never been a significant factor in Pakistan politics since they have routinely been humiliated in elections. It is only in recent years and under military dictators that the mainstream parties have been suppressed. It is for this reason why the victory of INC is so timely for the cause of secularism in Pakistan.

2. Globalization: Good relations with India is bound to have a positive economic impact on Pakistan in terms of opening it up to the forces of globalization. Peace in the regions is bound to increase fdi in both countries. Again, globalization did not come to India until recently, so the past 50 years are not relevant.

3. Cultural: India has an increasingly rich and diverse culture with some very positive aspects - the emphasis on education, the promotion of the arts including cinema and music, the large and growing number of professional people, not to mention cricket - that will serve to boost their counterparts in Pakistan. Pakistan of course has developed its own rich traditions particularly in things like paintings and music, but improved relations with India will further strengthen these traditions due to the larger audience.

So, it is not some warm and fuzzy feelings of goodwill, but specific political, economic and cultural aspects that I am thinking of.

#122 by tahmed32
//..They were all very proud that their local boy had become PM of India. ..//

Yes - and they would have probably killed or converted the same ``local boy`` had he chosen to live in that village. It`s like Gujjus fawning over Irfan Pathan after his cricketing heroics - after propagating killings and all kinds of hate propganda against his community.

Anyway - I am sure you have your reasons to be optimistic on this percolation theory - but let me show you the flip side:

There have been numerous comments in paki press expressing awe at how ``power was transferred peacefully`` in India ..... well ... duh .... Power in India is getting transferred ``peacefully`` since 1947 ( with one exception ). Were pakistanis sleeping all this while? The lack of awareness is just unbelievable.

If your percolation theory was valid ...... then the fact that India has been doing this democracy thingy for last 50+ years should have made some positive impact on pakistan - right? But it didn`t.

SO is the case with secularism. Barring 6 years of BJP rule - it was INC that was ruling India .... and secularism was professed and practiced (flawed as it might be) since the begginning. But this had no effect on pakistan whatsover. And now INC is back in power - how would this encourage secularism in pakistan?? I mean what has changed??

It would be great if INC rule India somehow does encourage secularism and democracy in Pakistan. But I doubt it - for one: this goes against the status quo power structure in pakistan.

re:#106 by tahmed32
Sorry for the delay in answering your post. I kinda got busy.
I agree with u entirely about the hollow claims of BJP with regards to the economic boom that India is witnessing today. It is true that BJP speeded up reforms that were initiated by Manmohan singh himself during his earlier avataar as the Finance Minister. BJP also cannot claim that the IT boom happenied in India because of its policies. BJP was only basking in the glory when the boom happened.
I started out as an admirer of BJP`s economic policies but got disillusioned when i saw how pro-rich this party had become. That in itself would not be bad in a developed country but in a country like India (where the first thing that stares at u when u step out of the airport is poverty), you need a govt that cares for the poor. Millions of dollars were spent to convince the middle income group Indians that India was shining because of BJP. I found this very distasteful.
I also happened to hear a speech delivered by Modi during his election compaign in Gujarat (it was played on the sulekha.com site) and i hated this man even more. His utter arrogance in challenging Sonia Gandhi to recite Vande Mataram (99% of Hindus can`t recite the full poem today as it is in sanskrit), and calling the Congress candidates as ``Paapis`` was something i could not digest. This guy had butchered more than 1000 hapless people in a state sponsored pogrom and he calls his opponents ``Paapis`` (sinners in Hindi). That was the last straw for me.
I think we will now see the true face of BJP, a face which was carefully camouflaged by people like ABV. We will now see BJP tilt more to the right and try and regain the hardcore votes that it has lost. It may also continue to create problems for Sonia Gandhi in future.
I differ with u on your perceptions of India`s nuclear explosions. I think we have argued about this in the past. My take on this is: India came to a point where keeping the bomb in the closet (as India had done in the past) proved meaningless. PV Narasimha Rao almost succeeded in his efforts to explode the bomb until US satellite caught him red handed (and red faced!). BJP, when it assumed office, made elaborate preparations at deception and succeeded.
BJP bullied Pak so that the latter can jump on to the bandwagon. India was thumbing its nose at the great powers who were restricting the bomb to an exclusive club. It is unfortunate Pak reacted to this episode differently (i do not blame Pak for doing so). What India and Pak need is the kind of strategic talks that happened between Jaswant Singh and Talbott. The best way to ensure peace is to know and trust your enemy well.
Sridhar

harimou``
``As to this bullcrap about Sonia Gandhi being the bahu of India, how come she didn`t burn herself at her husband`s funeral pyre? ``

That`s a no-brainer. She is not a Hindu! :)

...and even Rajiv. His father was a Parsee, so under the Hindu tradition, he would be a Parsee, unless the wild rumours of his being registered as Bob at St. Stephen`s are true, which would make him a christian, too!

mohar #111 The fact that Manmohan was born and raised in a village close by Islamabad makes me even more optimistic.

They showed the village he grew up in yesterday, and interviewed a number of fellows who remembered him including a former classmate. They were all very proud that their local boy had become PM of India.

Ref rsridhar #95

[Sonia Gandhi did India proud by renouncing her claim, something few politicians in India today are capable of doing.]

Yep. Just like her grandfather Mahatma Gandhi. Like grandfather, like granddaughter!

As to this bullcrap about Sonia Gandhi being the bahu of India, how come she didn`t burn herself at her husband`s funeral pyre?

omar_r_quraishi #117
``you were badgering me about my profession``

By telling you I prefer not to read writers with whom I can not disagree? Rest assured, I will henceforth neither read what you write nor interact with you. If I do, please feel free to call the FBI or ISI out on me.

to #103....you can have kashmir...they`re a worthless lot and contribute nothing to the indian economy, and especially their own region....pakistan cannot afford the maintenance of kashmir and kashmiris...it is actually better that they stay in india so you can create mischief and have fun at india and kashmir`s expense...phooey to the missile story..what good is a missile when one doesn`t have the necessary technical expertise to maintain and upgrade it over a period of time.......india ain`t sitting and watching either....after losing 3 wars against india and always claiming to have the latest ``weapons`` in their arsenal it astounds me as to how the pakis keep grandstanding india over and over again..i guess the soft-spoken dr.manmohan singh will be the one who deliver a strong blow to your country that will put an end to your needless obsession with india...get over it man...half of my country doesn`t even know what a pakistani looks like,let alone care....

#105 -- i dont really want to know sadna but you were badgering me about my profession so i thought i should ask you the same -- expected reply by the way -- and now you will understand my reluctance to discuss my profession and how me and my fellow journalists should be conducting ourselves with every sita-aaee-gayee (frankly, the reference was lost on me sadna) --

re:#100 by soundmeister
No, I mean India.
Sridhar

tahmed
//...A secular India will be a great antidote to our BJP types (i.e. the religious and nationalist ideologues) within Pakistan...///

Come on :) :)

Don`t be THAT optimistic.

satymavada: you ask ``where is the reference that sanctions were lifted against Pakiland after its nuke explosions ? ``

You seem to be unable to comprehend plain english.

Re-read my post #71 addressed to you where I already told you this. For your majesty`s convenience I have cut and paste what I already told you once:

``On my point 1. i.e. you write ``The sanctions were lifted only after 9/11``. You are wrong and are obviously not aware of what happened after the nuclear explosions of May 1998. In October 1998, the Brownback I law was signed by Congress that effectively lifted the various sanctions Pakistan had been put under over the past decade (Glenn, Symington, Pressler) in an unsuccessful effort by the US to stop its nuclearization program. ``

Still having trouble getting it? Go to google and shed some of your ignorance. But quit wasting my time. I dont run the Advani Benevolent School for BJP Retards.

HP

``Intellectual honesty is hard to achieve and a mere mortal like me, don’t even pretend to be intellectually honest. I am what I am. But if I vigorously preach intellectual honesty, I may need to look in the mirror often to see how honest I actually am in my discourse here or elsewhere.``

heh, heh, heh, so maybe you will be called intellectually lazy.

tahmed,

dude - where is the reference that sanctions were lifted against Pakiland after its nuke
explosions ?
You are a supporter of a dictator and now lecturing about democracy !
you are a bullshitter par excellence.

PS to AlephNull #91
I feel uncomfortable talking about individuals, so let me talk of my general experience here and elsewhere.

The commonality I draw between all such is `ideology`. If one has to keep reconciling the facts of real life with one`s dearly-held ideology, however sincere and decent one is, the contradictions between real life and ideology force one to fudge the truth, twist facts, lie outright develop selective deafness, even become pathological liars in some matters.


It comes to a point where a person`s sense of true and false is blurred to the extent, he/she begins to believe and defend creative interpretations of the truth as an article of faith even in the extreme.

Though one may be very reasonable in matters totally outside the ambit of ideology, within its ambit, dissent constitutes an attack on the whole belief system(hence is taken as `hate`),in a sort of mental seige.

And similar to the dynamics of religion, here too in the company of others of same belief system, the seige gets a more clear reinforcement/validation than anything in real life can offer.

If you look at a number of prominent Indian `leftist` inclined writers, you will see this same tendency to twist facts or outright lie or at least ignore totally what doesnot fit into their preconceived ideological world view. You will encounter the same thick shell whether you disagree with say Dilip DSouza or with say Rajeev Srinivasan.

Contrasts : Except for leftists, IMVHO, Indian ideological drones are generally johnny-come-latelys, they have been imbued in their respective ideology for only a number of years of their adult lives - so may be still reachable. Here we are often looking at a life time`s worth.

mohar #108 If this is indeed the season for renunciations, maybe I should get my head shaved, put on ashes and a sackcloth, and renounce further comment on those poor losers of BJP on chowk. :-)

I think INC will prove a major benefit to the Indian economy as well as to Indo-Pakistan relations (and therefore to Pakistan as well). That is, while retaining growth in the outsourcing business, they will correct the current imbalance in generate growth in agriculture. In Pakistan, they are projecting an increase in the GNP growth rate for Pakistan to 6% this year - and most of it is due to improvements in agriculture. This grass roots development has had secondary multiplier effects - yesterday I heard a Pakistani official say that they are expecting record sales in motorbikes to rural areas made possible by increased agricultural incomes.

It is too early to say how this will all impact on Pakistan - but from all indications, I think there is every reason to be optimistic. A secular India will be a great antidote to our BJP types (i.e. the religious and nationalist ideologues) within Pakistan.

#94 by AlephNull
#89 by AlephNull

I fear of sounding like a derelict….

I disagree with most posters on this site, I also agree with some posters some of the time and if I don’t agree with some at all, I just go ahead and skip their posts as their gems are beyond me. I am not even remotely suggesting that I am better than anybody. I am probably the worst poster on this site. I, too, find some discussions totally hilarious, yet, I am not going to obsessively follow those posters in order to teach them a thing or two about democracy or logic. I may not appreciate their lack of an ascending learning curve but I think, I still don’t have the right to obsessively make them come up to my standards and if they don’t, I wouldn’t hasten to make them an object of my scorn.

We talk about religion and how it has shaped people’s thought process. We scorn them for “religiously” saying things that don’t make sense, we may suggest deprogramming. We show them mirror time and time again and finally in our own frustration, attempt to put them down only because they fail to come up to our standards. It is easy to show mirror to others, it is easy to suggest deprogramming, and it easy to humble somebody for certain reasons. By doing all this, we are actually showing our own prejudices against people and are ourselves involved in a “religious” fervor to correct things.

We may have pulled the “revealed” or non revealed religion from our system. Strangely enough, While doing so, we may have created our own “religion” that stays in our mind and often we end up addressing people with the zeal of adherents of revealed religion.

Intellectual honesty is hard to achieve and a mere mortal like me, don’t even pretend to be intellectually honest. I am what I am. But if I vigorously preach intellectual honesty, I may need to look in the mirror often to see how honest I actually am in my discourse here or elsewhere.

soundmeister: you wrote ``Hence your repeated insinuation that every hindu here is a die-hard supporter of the BJP. ``

You are a liar. I have in fact often stressed the fact that every society - hindu or muslim or any else - has its fools and its normal people. If you wish to prove that you are not a liar, then cut and paste where I have made this insinuation.

I didnt read the rest of your post - why should I waste my time reading your lengthy post if you start of with a lie.

tahmed

Actually - BJP did come out looking sore loosers in this whole episode. But their protests were reflecting opinions of many Indians and hence it was a democratic expression - not an ``irresponsible`` behavior.

I think it was good that they protested strongly - if that contributed towards a good decision being taken by Sonia. At the end of the day - India got what it wanted and needed - a professional, capable, forward-looking administrator. Dr Singh is what India needs at this time.

Sonia too got what she needed - a wider acceptability and respect. Also she solidified her position in the party and a place for her children to take over later.

The outcome has made everybody happy.

Regarding Sushma`s theatrics - I don`t know which is worse : Her dramatics for Sonia NOT to be PM ...... or Congressmen`s wailing and begging for Sonia to be PM.

On a lighter side - Sushma`s threat to renunciate her hair is par course for the season. This is a season of renunciations.

rsridhar #95 I think we are in agreement on both points.

On Sonia Gandhi`s admirable response to BJP`s shenanigans, see my post #97 to mohar. Under the circumstances this was probably a wise move on her part and certainly took the wind out of the BJP party leaders. Manmohan Singh will no doubt prove to be a wise leader, just like Gujral and ABV were before him - except he will not suffer from the big drawback ABV had of being surrounded by fools like Advani and other BJP leaders or primitives like Modi in his party.

Like all chauvinist parties, BJP and its hindutva viewpoint are basically intellectually and morally bankrupt. As a practical matter, I think over time historians will increasingly see the BJP policies of upping the ante with Pakistan to have proved self-defeating - as I mentioned below on their nuclear explosions that have proved to be manna from heaven for Pakistan (a point I made below which infuriated some individuals here). :-)

Over time, I think it will also become increasingly clear over time that BJP was getting a free ride on economic growth generated by globalization. The other point BJP ran on (the peace initiative with Pakistan) was just as hollow a claim, since those peace movements had started before BJP, under Gujral. All BJP did was to delay further progress for several years until it was forced to come to the peace table - having failed to bully Pakistan with their nukes. Musharaff no doubt further delayed it by doing Kargill, but I am surprised to see no one looks at BJP`s failed policies and sorry record of bullying Pakistan that preceded the 1998 explosions. If it hadnt been for ABV, the peace movement would probably have stayed on ice until INC came back in power in India - and the continued confrontation would have cost India and Pakistan untold billions in lost economic progress and military expenditures.

omar_r_quraishi #102
``so sadna, u didnt tell us, what profession are u in? ``

I will not be telling you. I do not bring my private matters into every discussion with every aaya raam-gayaa raam online.

AlephNull #91
``Some of the Pakistanis seem perfectly ‘normal’ as well, most of the time – but there are others who repeatedly display traits that lie outside my common experience with Indians, and it is these that I want to decipher. ``

Having had a little experience(not a lot) of the home-grown variety of what you describe on that other site, it seems to me this is not wholly unique. I humbly suggest that you compare notes with Zafar.

Yes. Pakistan is feeling good. Well its congress time and its missile time in pakistan. I guess the blackmail has started again..........will the congress wilt and hand over Kashmir. The congress has to decide between being wnating to be obliterated by not handing Kahmir over and living to tell the tale.....

the news item:

Pak to test-fire 3500 km long-range missile in June


Friday, 21 May , 2004, 15:03

Pakistan is all set to test-fire on June 3 its new long-range ballistic missile Ghauri-III, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and having a range of 3,500 km covering all major cities in India.
Discuss: Pakistan is asking for trouble!



The missile, which has a range of 3500 kilometres compared to the 2000-km Shaheen missile test fired in March, would be launched from the firing range near Nowshehra into the Arabian Sea, official sources were quoted as saying on Thursday.

Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali was informed of the details of the test when he visited the country`s premier nuclear installation Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) on Thursday, English daily The Nation reported.

It said, according to officials the missile could be tentatively test fired on June 3, close on the heels of a new government headed by Manmohan Singh assuming office in India.

Based on liquid fuel, Ghauri-III is a ground-to-ground ballistic missile. If test fired, Ghauri-III would be the second long-range missile developed by the KRL. It had test fired 2500-km range, Shaheen-II in March.

tahmed786- a lesson in Politics101

You are a classic case of a person who has never been exposed to the concept of democracy. Hence your repeated insinuation that every hindu here is a die-hard supporter of the BJP. Accepted that a lot of us voted for them, but the beauty of my country (as opposed to that sh1thole next door) is that while I can make a rational informed choice about who should govern me for the next 5 years, I am always at liberty to change my opinion next time around. And the fact that I voted for the beej doesn`t prevent me from welcoming a fine scholarly gentleman like Manmohan Singh to the PM`s post and giving him and his governement the respect they deserve.

I suppose it`s also pointless to try and explain to you that the likes of sushma swaraj and uma bharati are embarassments to themselves and civilised people everywhere, but are essential in any political party if it is to remain true to its electoral base, i.e. the masses. there are a lot of idiots in this country and one has to stay in touch with all of them. Vajapayee cannot address all the segments himself- he is the poster boy for people-like-us, as are jaswant singh, yeshwant sinha and the like (mooli manure joshi is a notable exception who is neither here nor there)- so the likes of modi, swaraj, uma bharati do it for him! we don`t like `em much- they cause riots and curfews and ban FTV, our favourite channel- but we accept that they have their place in this country and one has to live with `em.

So simple no? Maybe some day pakistan will have the guts to throw out their mullah-supported, military-backed ``rulers`` and elect themselves a government they can be proud of, love, hate, scream at, commend, be satisfied with, or get frustrated with. Till that day, take cheap potshots at india, hindus and the bjp, because there`s little else you can do really is there?

Re: rsridhar#95:
``Sonia Gandhi did India proud by renouncing her claim, something few politicians in India today are capable of doing.``

She did INDIA proud? Don`t you mean Italy :))))))

bad solution sadna

so sadna, u didnt tell us, what profession are u in? by the way manmohan singh was born in this village near dina/jhelum -- place called gah -- expect a story soon with pics in dawn soon

Alephnull: You are simply trying to make it appear that I dont know what I am saying while ignoring what I actually said. This is what I had said (in my post #56), and you can correct me if I am wrong - as long as you stick to what I have written below, and spare me further tirades directed towards me rather than towards I have written:

``1. Prior to the nuclear explosions, Pakistan was in the economic doghouse living under all sorts of sanctions. In the weeks and months following the explosions, the sanctions were steadily lifted. Thanks to BJP, Pakistan came in from out of the cold.

2. Throughout the 1990`s, prior to the nuclear explosions, BJP had followed an aggressive policy of confrontation with Pakistan. After the explosions: BJP suddenly discovered the virtues of peace with Pakistan. ``

Sadna #91

{{Not mass tonsuring to keep us from tearing our collective hair out, hopefully??}}

Oh no [Though my greatest regret on Sonia Gandhi’s refusal to assume the gaddi is that we won’t get to witness Sushma Swaraj tonsure, videographed for posterity, etc. I was rather looking forward to it.]

My brief answer is – try to understand why Tahmed thinks what he thinks, unravel the internal structure of his belief system. Don’t try to change his beliefs – they’re too tightly integrated into his worldview.

Questions to address:

(1) Is this at all interesting beyond the merely personal? Does it give any insight into the mentalities of people other than a specific subject, the dominant discourse of a class perhaps?
(2) Is this valuable when the beliefs in question are poorly thought-out, ill-founded, counterfactual? Especially valuable perhaps?
(3) What does one look for in a counterfactual belief system? Recurrent motifs, characteristic repeated patterns among these motifs, internal regularities? A glimpse of the deep internal processes and tensions that engender these?
(4) What subjects are likely to provide good insight? Requirements on the subject being prolific, generally honest/sincere according his lights, mostly not consciously engaging in agitprop, etc.?
(5) What utterances are most likely to provide insight? Those made under stress and in anger? Or those made repeatedly in an apparently un-self-conscious manner, as though completely natural?

My belief is that when you encounter a person with strongly counterfactual elements in his belief system, the reasons may run much deeper than simple dishonesty (though that is the likely explanation for some cases).

I’ve actually been doing something along these lines for a while, with a couple of the most prolific Chowk posters whose discourse I found displayed especially striking and unexpected features. Without disparaging anyone’s individuality, the Indians on Chowk – from arjun to rsridhar to stuka to the occasional hindutvavadi – are mostly somewhat recognizable types from my milieu, people I can understand and regard as ‘normal’ even if I disagree violently with them on some things. Some of the Pakistanis seem perfectly ‘normal’ as well, most of the time – but there are others who repeatedly display traits that lie outside my common experience with Indians, and it is these that I want to decipher.